In another forum, I was presented with two of Wescott's quotes, where D.A. Waite finds "pure HERESY" and "HERESY of the first dimension" in Westcott's words. Here the quotes, and my responses:
First, the context of this quote is about how John records Jesus using mainly two terms: "the Father" and "my Father". Westcott is comparing/contrasting how/when each is used, and noting that generally Jesus uses "my Father" to emphasize the Father-Son relationship of the Trinity (i.e.emphasizing that he is "the Son") while using "the Father" does not carry this emphasis but deals with the God-man relationship. The next sentence (which Waite conveniently left off) is "The former suggests those thoughts, which spring from the consideration of the absolute moral connexion of man with God: the latter, those which spring from what is made known to us through revelation of the connexion of the Incarnate Son with God and with man. In other words, when Jesus uses "my Father", the Trinitarian relationship of Father-Son is in view, but while using "the Father", the Creator-creation relationship is in view.
Waite says "The term "FATHER" cannot refer to "HUMANITY" as a whole outside of faith in Jesus Christ. This is HERESY of the first dimension!" I think scripture disagrees with Waite, for Isa 64:8 says we all are the work of the hand of the Father (he is the potter, we are the clay), Mal 2:10 says "Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?" and Eph 4:6 says "One God and Father of all" - would Waite accuse Isaiah, Malachi and Paul of "HERESY of the first dimension!"? Probably not. Also, we are all familiar with how everyone descended from David can call David "father". Scripture (Luke 1:32) says that David is Jesus' father, because Jesus can trace his human lineage back to David. Likewise, all physically descended from Abraham can call Abraham "father", all descendents from Abraham are "sons" of Abraham in the physical sense. ALL of humanity is descended from Adam, who "was the son of God" (Luke 3:38 ) - so in that sense all of humanity, from Adam onward, are "sons" of God in that physical lineage sense, and thus in that sense God is "Father" of all mankind. Of course, that relationship has been broken in the spiritual sense, and many do not return to being a son of God in the spiritual sense. Waite's assertion that the term "father" cannot refert to humanity as a whole is simply wrong, and thus so is his assertion that it is heresy - if Waite is correct, then Isa 64:8, Mal 2:10, Luke 3:38 and Eph 4:6 are just as heretical. Personally, I'll believe the Bible instead of Waite.
Waite goes on to say "Does not Westcott understand clearly John 8:44, where Jesus Christ taught TWO FATHERHOODS?" This is a strange question coming from Waite, who (one of your links said) has "examined the writings of these men probably as exhaustively as anyone speaking on the subject today". For right in the very book Waite took this quote from, Waite could have flipped forward a few pages and see that yes, indeed, Westcott not only understood John 8:44 and "two fatherhoods". But the two fatherhoods in that context are in the spiritual sense (many follow Satan, but none were created by him). So why did Waite even ask this question? Is it because he was incredibly sloppy, or intentionally misrepresentative?
By Waite again mentioning John 8:44, he again shows his own botched handling of the quote. Again, Waite fails to distinguish between Westcott talking about the physical and Westcott talking about the the spiritual - he's trying to apply Westcott's words about the physical onto the spiritual. God is able to keep any man from plucking men out of his hand, because God is the creator of all - all powerful, creator of all. No man, as one of his creations, is thus going to have the ability to overthrow that power and pluck someone out of his hand. The creature does not have more power than the creator.
This quotes by Westcott are not heretical. They are simply misunderstood (or more likely, intentionally misrepresented) by Waite. Waite is attempting to portray Westcott as believing in universal Fatherhood in a *spiritual* sense, which is simply not the case - even more of Westcott's *from the same pages* that Waite got his quotes from show this, but Waite chose to "overlook" these sorts of things (I can provide full-page scans of any of the pages from the book the quotes are from, if you want to see them). I mean, Waite had to actually read these pages in entirety to find these quotes, right? If so (and I can't see how he didn't), then Waite *knows* he's misreprenting Westcott. And that's perhaps the most disturbing part of the whole issue.
God bless,
Brian
Quote:
1. Westcott Believed "FATHERHOOD OF GOD" Could Be Applied To "HUMANITY" As A Whole Because Of Creation in The "DIVINE IMAGE." He wrote:
(John 4:21) Very much of the exact force of St. John's record of the Lord's words appear to depend upon the different conceptions of the TWO FORMS under which the FATHERHOOD OF GOD is described. God is spoken of as "THE FATHER" and as "my Father." Generally it may be said that the FORMER TITLE expresses the original relation of God to being and SPECIALLY TO HUMANITY, in virtue of man's CREATION IN THE DIVINE IMAGE, and the latter more particularly the relation of the Father to the Son Incarnate, and so indirectly TO MAN in virtue of the Incarnation. (W-John, op. cit., pp. 79-80).
The term "FATHER" cannot refer to "HUMANITY" as a whole outside of faith in Jesus Christ. This is HERESY of the first dimension! Does not Westcott understand clearly John 8:44, where Jesus Christ taught TWO FATHERHOODS? Likewise, the term, "MY FATHER" cannot refer to "MAN" as a whole either, but only to one redeemed by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is NOT in virtue of "THE INCARNATION" that men can call God "MY FATHER," but by virtue of the vicarious and substitutionary sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross!!
First, the context of this quote is about how John records Jesus using mainly two terms: "the Father" and "my Father". Westcott is comparing/contrasting how/when each is used, and noting that generally Jesus uses "my Father" to emphasize the Father-Son relationship of the Trinity (i.e.emphasizing that he is "the Son") while using "the Father" does not carry this emphasis but deals with the God-man relationship. The next sentence (which Waite conveniently left off) is "The former suggests those thoughts, which spring from the consideration of the absolute moral connexion of man with God: the latter, those which spring from what is made known to us through revelation of the connexion of the Incarnate Son with God and with man. In other words, when Jesus uses "my Father", the Trinitarian relationship of Father-Son is in view, but while using "the Father", the Creator-creation relationship is in view.
Waite says "The term "FATHER" cannot refer to "HUMANITY" as a whole outside of faith in Jesus Christ. This is HERESY of the first dimension!" I think scripture disagrees with Waite, for Isa 64:8 says we all are the work of the hand of the Father (he is the potter, we are the clay), Mal 2:10 says "Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?" and Eph 4:6 says "One God and Father of all" - would Waite accuse Isaiah, Malachi and Paul of "HERESY of the first dimension!"? Probably not. Also, we are all familiar with how everyone descended from David can call David "father". Scripture (Luke 1:32) says that David is Jesus' father, because Jesus can trace his human lineage back to David. Likewise, all physically descended from Abraham can call Abraham "father", all descendents from Abraham are "sons" of Abraham in the physical sense. ALL of humanity is descended from Adam, who "was the son of God" (Luke 3:38 ) - so in that sense all of humanity, from Adam onward, are "sons" of God in that physical lineage sense, and thus in that sense God is "Father" of all mankind. Of course, that relationship has been broken in the spiritual sense, and many do not return to being a son of God in the spiritual sense. Waite's assertion that the term "father" cannot refert to humanity as a whole is simply wrong, and thus so is his assertion that it is heresy - if Waite is correct, then Isa 64:8, Mal 2:10, Luke 3:38 and Eph 4:6 are just as heretical. Personally, I'll believe the Bible instead of Waite.
Waite goes on to say "Does not Westcott understand clearly John 8:44, where Jesus Christ taught TWO FATHERHOODS?" This is a strange question coming from Waite, who (one of your links said) has "examined the writings of these men probably as exhaustively as anyone speaking on the subject today". For right in the very book Waite took this quote from, Waite could have flipped forward a few pages and see that yes, indeed, Westcott not only understood John 8:44 and "two fatherhoods". But the two fatherhoods in that context are in the spiritual sense (many follow Satan, but none were created by him). So why did Waite even ask this question? Is it because he was incredibly sloppy, or intentionally misrepresentative?
Quote:
2. Westcott Clearly Stated The HERETICAL Doetrine Of The "UNIVERSAL FATHERHOOD" Of God in Discussing John 10:29. He wrote:
(John 10:29) The thought, which is concrete in v. 28, is here traced back to its most absolute form as resting on the essential power of God in His relation of UNIVERSAL FATHERHOOD. (W-John, op. cit., p. 159).
This, again, is pure HERESY as taught by the Lord Jesus Christ in John 8:44!! To accept the heresy of the "UNIVERSAL FATHERHOOD" of God, is to misunderstand the total plan of redemption that God wrought out through His Son, Jesus Christ!
By Waite again mentioning John 8:44, he again shows his own botched handling of the quote. Again, Waite fails to distinguish between Westcott talking about the physical and Westcott talking about the the spiritual - he's trying to apply Westcott's words about the physical onto the spiritual. God is able to keep any man from plucking men out of his hand, because God is the creator of all - all powerful, creator of all. No man, as one of his creations, is thus going to have the ability to overthrow that power and pluck someone out of his hand. The creature does not have more power than the creator.
This quotes by Westcott are not heretical. They are simply misunderstood (or more likely, intentionally misrepresented) by Waite. Waite is attempting to portray Westcott as believing in universal Fatherhood in a *spiritual* sense, which is simply not the case - even more of Westcott's *from the same pages* that Waite got his quotes from show this, but Waite chose to "overlook" these sorts of things (I can provide full-page scans of any of the pages from the book the quotes are from, if you want to see them). I mean, Waite had to actually read these pages in entirety to find these quotes, right? If so (and I can't see how he didn't), then Waite *knows* he's misreprenting Westcott. And that's perhaps the most disturbing part of the whole issue.
God bless,
Brian
